FROM THE EDITOR

	Regardless of who is the victor in this month's presidential 
race, ad irrespective of the alignment of the new Congress, gunowners 
will be facing a stew of new proposals with the clear intent of further 
limiting our civil right to own guns.  As is generally the case with this 
kind o legislative cookery, some of the ingredients have already been 
bought and displayed by their various chefs, presumably to entice the 
consumer to "Eat at Moe's" in the coming months.  Also like smart 
denizens fo the kitchen, alot of these "new" ideas are really last year's 
(or in some cases, last decade's) eggplant now labeled aubergine, the 
better to make you eat your vegetables.

	Because there are really alot of these turnips out there, waiting 
to be sliced and diced, I thought this would be a good time to take a 
look at them, a la carte, as it were, especially since many of them have 
received only the most cursory inspection from the nation's media.

	TAGGANTS

	This is an oldie, first appearing as an issue of the 1970s, but 
revived in recent months, first following the Oklahoma City bombing, and 
later after the TWA Flight 800 disaster and the Centennial Park bombing 
in Atlanta.

	Basically, those calling for taggants (identifiable microscopic 
plastic particle) in explosive material and gunpowder have done a grave 
disservice to te public, by making it seem as if a simple procedure could 
have guaranteed the apprehension of those responsible for the crime.

	Leaving aside a key fact--that even if taggants worked as 
advertised, they could not prevent crime--there are a number of other 
factors at work here that make the issue insupportable.

	First and foremost, while taggants are added to some explosive 
materials in European countries, they are not added to gunpowder (black 
powder) anywhere in the world because of safety concerns.  The addition 
of anything foreign to a substance like black powder would seem to be a 
very bad idea, and in the testing done in this country in the late '70s, 
stability problems so alarmed manufacturers under contract to the 
government is testing programs, that they were allowed to abandon the 
projects.  No further major testing has been done on the idea anywhere 
since then, so that while it sounds like a good idea, it is so far just a 
nice theory.  Should there someday prove to be a method of safely adding 
a taggant to gunpowder, it should also be remembered that it is typically 
produced in 30,000 pound lots (to which the taggant would be added) but 
typically sold in one, four and eight pound lots.  That is not quite the 
instantaneous match with a felon that is now being described by 
proponents of the measure.  From each one pound sold there would have to 
be an accounting.  For example, if you legally bought a pound of powder 
(so that it could be traced to you) you would then need to account for 
every grain.  If, out of you pound, you loaded 100 3" shotshells, for 
example, you'd still have powder left from your pound that you could 
presumably show some sort of government inspector.  After further 
searching, you produce 20 shells loaded from the powder batch in question 
that you did not fire.  That still leaves you contained in 80 shells 
unaccounted for.  Even if you could produce records that said yo shot 
three rounds of trap at your club, you could not guarantee that the 75 
shells you fired were made from that batch of powder or account for the 
other five, which you think you might have given to one of your line 
mates.   Presumably, that would still leave you as a suspect in whatever 
crime ws being investigated, along with about 29,999 other people.

	It should be remembered that when dealing with technical issues 
it is good idea to get as many of the facts as possible so that you can 
knowledgeably respond to other people's concerns.  One of the reasons the 
whole "assault weapons" debate was lost in the public opinion arena is 
that people who should have known better, i.e. gunowners, didn't take the 
time to fully explain the technical side of the issue until it was much 
too late.

	DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND GUNS

	This new proposal to confiscate legally held handguns and deny 
future purchase forever to anyone convicted of a misdemeanor domestic 
abuse charge has just passed the Senate, as we go to press.  Congress is 
in a hurry to adjourn, so that the members can get back to their real 
jobs--running for reelection, and, apparently, want to go back to their 
districts and tell constituents that they've made the country safer.  The 
operative word here is misdemeanor, since, if you are convicted of a 
felony, you are already denied purchase and existing firearms must be 
disposed of.

	Once again, in a rush to take headlines, Senators have legislated 
before they looked.  This is merely cynical vote getting at its apogee.

	Firstly, while domestic violence and stalking are often linked, 
they are not always.  The measure allows no additional protection to 
people who are stalked by criminals with whom they have no domestic 
arrangement.  If you never lived with your ex-boyfriend, for example, and 
he decides to harass you, you have legal remedies available to you, such 
a s retraining orders, trespass charges, and, if the situation escalates 
to violence, misdemeanor and criminal charges for any number of 
offenses.  But, under this proposed legislation, he could not be denied 
possession of firearms.  The same is true if you were stalked by someone 
unknown to you, or someone with whom your relationship is classified as 
"friend or acquaintance," such as a co-worker or neighbor.  It all 
presupposes that the law enforcement agencies involved will have the 
time, money and personnel to follow up.  A close friend who was successful 
in bringing before a judge her hitherto unknown to her harasser a number 
of years ago, told me he was given 18 months probation and mandatory 
counseling.  During his probation period, he took a shot at her young son 
(the child was unharmed), an event witnessed by an unrelated third 
party.  When my friend called the police to have the man arrested, they 
merely called him and asked him if he owned a gun, to which he replied, 
"No."  There was no follow up, even though the incident took place in a 
state where records on handgun purchasers where available.

	Okay, someone says, using a favorite canard in this kind of 
argument, "but if it saves one life, it's worth it, right?"

	Let's think about whose life we're saving for a moment.  It is 
important to member that domestic violence cases sometimes initially 
involve charges against both parties in a fight.  Increasingly, the 
police are bringing in both spouses when called out on "domestic" cases, 
because it is often difficult to later get the offended party ( usually 
the woman) to press charges after the incident is over, especially if it 
involves only a screaming match or minor injuries.  In such a case, if 
both parties were charged with the misdemeanor offense like disturbing the 
peace, and, as is normally the case, pleaded guilty ot put the incident 
behind them, both husband and wife would then have misdemeanor 
convictions on their records.  Presumably, both would have their firearms 
licenses revoked and be barred from further purchases.  Even if we put on 
our Pollyanna smiles and decide that this couple reconciles, seeks 
counseling and never has another cross word to say to one another again, 
which is almost never the case in these situations, suppose that their 
home is then the target of vicious home invaders.  Our reconciled couple 
is then defenseless to protect themselves and their family from criminal 
onslaught.  Of course, in the same scenario, the couple might separate, 
and spar over the years, until one or the other decided to do real 
violence.  Either partner would be defenseless, regardless of who was the 
murderous aggressor.

	It is important that we think proposals like this through, and 
cut through the emotionalism obviously intended to make everyone jump 
aboard a speeding train going nowhere.

	VICTIMS' RIGHTS

	Both the Democratic and Republican party platforms this summer 
called for passage of something called the Victims' Rights Amendments, an 
amendment to the Constitution that is intended to guarantee victims of 
crime compensation and a say in disposition of charges against their 
predators.

	Most reasonable people think the constitution should only be 
amended to redress obvious flaws in the existing document.  The Founders, 
for example, quickly realize they had forgotten a mess of things, mostly 
related to personal liberty, and quickly added the Bill of Rights to the 
Constitution, to codify freedoms like assembly, firearms ownership, 
protection against search and seizure, the right to a fair and speedy 
trial, etc.  Despite their brilliance, they still forgot a few things, 
like the voting rights of non-white men, the direct election of the 
United States senators (previously appointed by state governors), the 
voting rights of all women, the income tax, and the succession of the 
presidency when the chief executive was incapacitated.

	The last amendment to the Constitution to pass, the 27th, granted 
voting rights to citizens between the ages of 18 and 20, and was, like 
amendments 11-26, the sense of the country at the time.

	Interestingly, the only amendment to ever be repealed, the 18th 
is the only one to have dealt with a narrow social issue--alcohol.,  The 
others, while they may have engendered ferocious debate at the time, 
wisely dealt with big picture items on which consensus was eventually 
reached.

	The implications for gunowners of the proposed Victims' Rights 
Amendment is two-fold.  On the one front, it provides hazards in cases 
where "victims" are allowed to be a larger part of the process that they 
are now.  If you shot a house breaker in self-defense, but did not kill 
him, he would presumably have some say in how your case was handled, 
possibly including overruling a grand jury's "no bill" finding and 
committing the case to trial, insisting on a ratching up of charges from, 
say, reckless endangerment to attempted murder, or even be allowed a 
disproportional say in your sentencing hearing.

	On the liability front, it would also allow our housebreaker to 
brig criminal penalties against you separate from those sought by the 
state, with fines and the like attached.

	there is also the problem of who is the specific victim of some 
crimes.  Would the parent of an unmarried daughter by the "victims" of 
her murder?  Or her child's guardian?  Or the child's biological father?  
What if these three parties disagreed on how to proceed?

	Fond as I am of lawyers jokes, I'm not ready to turn the flawed 
criminal justice system over to people overset with emotions, or with 
axes to grind.

	BRADY II

	The Brady Act, nee the Brady Bill, sunsets in 1998, when all 
states are mandated to be on-line with an instant check system.  Sarah 
Brady's megalomania is such, however, that she has once again lent her 
husband's name to legislation, this time a bill styled as Brady II.

	Mrs. Brady in her bizarre yet triumphant rant to the Democratic 
National Convention in August (bizarre in that it is the only instance in 
my memory in which a registered lobbyist was allowed to lecture the 
American people via a party convention in which party there is still some 
disagreement over the issue in question, without disclaimer by any of the 
parties involved, rather like the Republicans allowing a representative 
of tobacco interests to speak to the convention, unchallenged by anyone 
in the party and without even a lifted eyebrow from the guardians of 
fairness, the media), brought forward a proposal that's been around for a 
few years already.

	Under "reasonable" Brady II, we'd be looking at federal 
registration of handguns,, legally defined "arsenals" of 20 guns or more 
(all types, including long guns, collectibles and black powder) or a 
total of 1000 rounds or primers for reloading that would allow for up to 
thrice-yearly federal inspection of the owner's premises to insure 
record-keeping and "security," and federally-mandated firearms safety 
training.

	Mrs. Brady was quick to point out, in her labored "humorous" 
style, that this would not affect "duck hunters in Arkansas."  Since I'm 
not planning to go duck hunting in Hot Springs any time soon, I remain 
unrelieved by this sop to our old friend "sporting use."

	What all of this fall's cornucopia of gun grabbing has in common 
in the divide and conquer strategies employed.  "Reasonable" gunowners 
are supposed to not mind any of these schemes because they won't 
interfere with us law-abiding types, at least until the enacted proposals 
move us out of the law-abiding category entirely.


Peggy Tartaro,
Executive Editor